Rema EL-Tawil

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their residential property for the 2025 and 2026 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $503,000 to $340,000.

MPAC sought a reduction to $468,000 based on the property's state and condition due to ongoing renovations.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the "state and condition" adjustment, finding no legislative authority to reduce the value for interim repairs.

Using the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the current value to be $491,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their vacant land, arguing it should not be classified as 'land on water' because they did not have a right of way over the abutting Ontario Power Generation property to access the Ottawa River.

MPAC assessed the property at $127,000 based on waterfront access.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellants could obtain a licenced access to the waterfront, it was not a permanent right of way.

The Board rejected MPAC's comparable properties and the appellants' comparable properties, instead selecting two of MPAC's comparables that were in the immediate vicinity and had similar licenced access.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $69,367 and found no equitable adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront single-family dwelling for the 2024, 2025, and 2026 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $850,000 was too high and proposing a value of $474,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) proposed a value of $702,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparables as they were based on assessed values rather than sales.

Relying on two of MPAC's comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value to be $687,747.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly constructed single-family dwelling for the 2024, 2025, and 2026 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $370,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed the value at $510,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's evidence, noting that MPAC's comparable sales were time-adjusted to the January 1, 2016 valuation date, whereas the appellants' were not.

The Board found the correct current value to be $510,000 and determined no equitable adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a newly built single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

The appellant argued for a current value of $3,679,000, while the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued for $4,088,000.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's comparable sales evidence and determined the current value to be $4,088,000.

The Board also found that MPAC's Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis demonstrated no clear under-assessment of similar homes in the vicinity, and therefore no equitable reduction was warranted under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2024 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant met the definition of extreme poverty based on her income, it found that she was not 'unable to pay' her taxes.

The evidence showed the applicant held approximately $35,000 in an RRSP in 2024, which could have been liquidated to pay the $6,673.88 in levied taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached residential dwelling in Hamilton for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

The appellant argued for a current value of $525,000, citing functional obsolescence due to accessibility modifications.

MPAC proposed a current value of $649,000 based on time-adjusted sales of comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's comparables as they were not time-adjusted to the valuation day.

Relying on MPAC's evidence, the Board determined the current value to be $670,152 and found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $1,265,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and determined the correct current value to be $1,297,000.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment to sales ratio of 0.98 indicated similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current values.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board under section 323(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 for the cancellation of his 2024 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty following a catastrophic accident.

The Board found that while the applicant's sickness reduced his household income, his income less non-discretionary expenses still left an annual surplus of at least $50,000.

The Board held that discretionary expenses cannot take precedence over the payment of property taxes and dismissed the application.